Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Peter Pike: Before I start the proceedings, I should say that this is the Committee's final sitting. I do not know what hon. Members believe are the most important items on the long list before us for debate, and I am completely in the hands of the Clerk for much of our proceedings. Obviously, however, if there are items that hon. Members want to reach, they should bear that in mind and use their common sense during the debate.Clause 74 Basic loss payment

Clause 74 - Basic loss payment

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. As this is the last sitting, and as our proceedings have been tightly timetabled all the way through, may I ask whether you have any power to change whether the knife comes down at 5 pm, or must we finish then, irrespective of how far we have got?

Peter Pike: I am sure that you know the answer—I have no power to change that. The only body that could do so is the Programming Sub-Committee, and it has given me no indication that it will vary what has been agreed. I am therefore bound by the decisions that it has taken.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does that not show what nonsense timetabling in Committees is?

Peter Pike: I cannot comment on that.

David Wilshire: May I refer to the wise advice that you have given the Committee, Mr. Pike? Some of the remaining clauses raise important issues. Indeed, all our previous sittings have raised a range of serious issues; some we have discussed, others we have not. However, you will understand why I believe—I hazard a guess that my colleagues will agree—that we should not pass over an issue just because it is not as important as the next one. It may be important in itself.
 One problem with the route down which the Government have taken us is that we have legislation by printing machine, rather than sensible discussion and deliberation. We had some useful exchanges this morning. The Minister was thoughtful and helpful, and explained things at length. It was a useful morning, but we managed to get through only a clause and a bit. 
 I am not prepared to play the Government's game, and to be stampeded by them into ignoring issues that need discussing, just so that we can get to the end of the Bill.

Peter Pike: Order. May I give guidance? I understand your point Mr. Wilshire, but you and I are long-time Members of the House, and we have seen what both the Labour and Conservative parties have done in government. Everyone understands your point, but I must see to it that we make progress. It is certainly not for me to consider the relative merits of a procedure. I hope that you will now resume the clause stand part debate.

David Wilshire: I am most grateful. Of course, you and I have been here a long time, Mr. Pike. We have seen Governments come and go, and I look forward to this one going sooner rather than later. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to say as much as I did, and I shall move on without trying your patience.
 Before lunch, I made several points about the clause, and I will not go back over them. As you were not in the Chair this morning, however, I will say that the Committee was slightly demob happy, although it did not quite get round to singing happy birthday to the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). It did cheer, however, when I finally mentioned Heathrow.

Tony McNulty: It was 11.18.

David Wilshire: Well, demob happy was the mood, but I do not know whether it will continue this afternoon.
 Several things are wrong with clause 75.

Peter Pike: Order. We are discussing clause 74. We have not yet reached clause 75, and I am sorry to keep interrupting, because I know that you are anxious to reach it—so am I.

David Wilshire: I managed to make that mistake without even having a decent lunch. What would have happened had I done so, I shudder to think.
 I wanted to say, although I did it in a ham-fisted way, that many of the issues that arise in the clause 74 stand part debate could almost be said to belong to clause 75 too; they are part and parcel of the same thing. I wonder, Mr. Pike, whether you have taken a view yet as to whether to allow a clause stand part debate on clause 75.

Peter Pike: As clause 75 will not otherwise be debated, it would be very remiss of me as Chairman not to allow any debate at all on it.

David Wilshire: I am grateful for that. My reason for asking was that many of the amendments that we discussed this morning are amendments to clause 75. There is some overlap.
 What is wrong with clause 74—and at this point I really am getting my mind round clause 74—is that it is driven by a formula which, as I was explaining, will sooner or later come a cropper and do somebody a grave injustice. The clause makes no reference—and nothing that the Minister has said has reassured me on this point—to the need, on occasion, to consider the replacement cost of something rather than the loss of what is being confiscated. In fact, it does the opposite, if one follows the Minister's guidance about the 
 taxpayer's expectation that not a penny more should be spent than the minimum that one can get away with. Sometimes that is right, sometimes not. 
 The clause makes no reference to speeding up. Occasionally, paying slightly over the odds means that the land is obtained more quickly, a public inquiry is avoided, and things are done before inflation drives up the cost of the whole project. Some public inquiries, even into compulsory purchase orders, can take a long time and cost a huge amount of money, so there are occasions when generosity is in the taxpayer's interest. Such issues are what concern me—the basic use of a formula, the lack of a reference to replacement cost, when it is needed, and the lack of any provision to speed up the process through voluntary negotiations. It is for those reasons that I have the greatest doubts about whether clause 74 is right, and whether it would be better to approach the matter differently.

Barbara Roche: It is good to serve in this Committee under your Chairmanship, Mr. Pike; I have not had that privilege before and I welcome you.
 I should mention to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that I was dismayed when the cheer went up at 11.18. I had not, of course, had the benefit of hearing the reference to Heathrow before.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Do not encourage him.

Barbara Roche: I found it very interesting. What can I say other than to register my dismay?
 We have debated clause 74 in some detail. The aim of these four clauses is to provide payments to make some allowances for the upset, discomfort and inconvenience of being required to leave a property or give up an interest in it at a time that is not of the owner or occupier's choosing. The new loss payments are in addition to compensation, at open market value, and disturbance costs. In setting the parameters for assessing the loss payment we have attempted to reflect the element of upset and inconvenience. The provision is not designed to provide a straight top-up to the open market value of the asset; nor is it a substitute for compensation at open market value, which is, and will continue to be, paid to those whose property is compulsorily acquired. 
 It was not always clear to me during the debate this morning that all hon. Members had fully understood the underlying basis of the proposed loss payments. To help the Committee, I emphasise that we do not propose any change to the current arrangements by which the owner of the land that is being acquired receives its open market value, including its value after account is taken of any buildings on it, as negotiated between the owner's professional advisers and the acquiring authority. The new loss payment will be additional to the compensation to which the owner or occupier is already entitled as recompense for any actual costs or losses incurred as a result of the acquisition, including relocation costs. Indeed, the 
 hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) recognised the importance of that. 
 In addition, to take the type of case referred to by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, an acquiring authority with compulsory purchase powers would be able to negotiate the acquisition of a person's interest on whatever terms the two parties could agree, and to pay the proposed loss payment in addition. So, to answer the point about cost inquiries raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold, the legislation is flexible enough to allow the local authority and the landowner to do just that. 
 There was also some discussion this morning about details of costs. Those will depend on the extent to which the introduction of the new loss payment regime encourages authorities to acquire more properties. Where the 10 per cent. additional loss payment becomes payable, there will be a 10 per cent. increase in the unit cost of acquiring the property. However, as set out in the regulatory impact assessment, the average overall increase in scheme costs is likely to be about 1 per cent. We would anticipate that being offset by the speeding-up of the acquisition process. 
 There has also been discussion about the formula. The hon. Member for Cotswold has accepted that we have provided regulation-making powers to enable us to change the percentages on which the loss payments are to be assessed, the maximum and minimum limits, and the rates per area for the land-and-buildings methods of assessing the occupiers' loss payment. Those can then be adjusted to reflect changes in property values. However, we also need to consider whether the levels set in the Bill provide the required incentive.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister helpfully responded to the intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne before lunch by providing a quote from the regulatory impact assessment. She said that she anticipated the overall costs of acquisition under the new arrangements to rise by 1 per cent. Can she explain the Government's underlying calculations? For instance, how many houses would she expect to be acquired in one year? The Government must have made some estimate in order to come up with 1 per cent. What was their thinking?

Barbara Roche: We are not discussing the full cost of compulsory purchase in the round. This is a loss payment that is made on top of that for disturbance and the open market price for the land. I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks the question, but it is difficult to disaggregate the figure. However, we can try to estimate what it would do to the overall cost of the scheme. It will be right to keep it under review. That is why we have included the power for Parliament, if it so wishes, to revisit the matter. The debate has been helpful and constructive, and I urge the Committee to support the clause.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I must ask the Minister—with the greatest good will, because she has been very courteous in her responses—for a little more financial information. Will she write to each Committee member and put a note in the Library about the direction of the trend for compulsory purchase? She
 did not tell us that when we discussed clause 73, and she has now mentioned the loss payments under clauses 74 and 75—I assume that she meant both, as she did not make that clear. In doing the arithmetic, she must have estimated the number of properties to be acquired. It would be useful to hear what the trend has been in the past five years and where the Government think it will go under these new, simplified and accelerated procedures. Will it increase, as one would expect? I would be grateful if the Minister would respond, perhaps in writing.
 The Minister mentioned clause 77 and the updating powers. It is in the nature of such matters for there to be a lag in updating them. I am not concerned about the percentages, because those will increase as the value of the property increases, but the maximum figures should be updated, particularly for those in low-value properties who will benefit most from the owners' loss payments and basic loss payments. Will the Minister clarify that matter, if not now, in writing? 
 I shall not urge my colleagues to vote against the clause. As the Minister says, the payment is in addition to the existing compulsory purchase payment for the value and disturbance. We therefore welcome it. It becomes less generous as one approaches clause 75, but we shall debate that when we come to it. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Occupier's loss payment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: Although I am prepared to allow a free stand part debate, the amendments that were listed against this clause were debated in the last group, because there was a close relationship between the two clauses.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We do need a little clarification. Whereas, under the previous clause, we were dealing with the basic loss payment, which was 7.5 per cent. of the value or a maximum of £75,000, in this clause we are dealing with the occupier's loss payment, which is 2.5 per cent. of the value of his interest, capped at £25,000. The same arguments apply, so I would press the Minister again about updating the maximum amount. We are to debate amendments on the matter later, but it would be helpful if the Minister would tell the Committee whether she anticipates updating the figure annually or in some other way.
 I slightly pre-empted the clause stand part debate on this clause by saying that whereas the basis loss payments given in clause 74 are reasonably generous, particularly to those in low-value properties, those in clause 75 are not. In layman's terms, the proposal in subsection (8) of new section 33B of the Land Compensation Act 1973 of £100 per hectare not exceeding 100 hectares amounts to £10,000 for 250 acres, or £15,000 for 750 acres. That is £40 per acre and £20 per acre respectively. Considering that the 
 current value of land is probably in excess of £2,000 per acre, it is minimal. 
 The Minister spoke earlier about compensating for the costs of removal. Some of the unreimbursed costs that I mentioned this morning, in terms of having to acquire a new farm and to build new buildings, will be far greater than £10,000 or £15,000. The payment is not very generous, and I do not think that it will encourage property owners to agree compulsory purchase arrangements quickly—nor does the National Farmers Union. However, we shall see whether the Government's judgment is correct. 
 The further that we move into the clauses, the less generous they become. The buildings amount given in subsection (9) of £25 per sq m or part of a sq m of the gross floor space of any buildings on the land is probably what a relatively low-cost building would achieve in rent in the city, where rents are—even in today's depressed market—currently between £20 and £60 per sq ft. That puts the capital value at between £2,400 and £7,200 per sq m. The building loss payments would amount to between 1 per cent. and 0.3 per cent. Considering that the acquisition costs of a compulsory purchase project are typically less than 25 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme, those payments are less than generous. It would be helpful of the Minister to show how she arrived at the figures and what she thinks that they will compensate for.

Barbara Roche: Clearly we will want to keep this point under review and will update provision when necessary. The hon. Gentleman questioned the figure of 2.5 per cent. for the occupier's loss payment. That derives from the current home loss payment, under which owner-occupiers can claim 10 per cent. of the value of the interest that is being acquired. It complements the 7.5 per cent. payable as a basic loss payment on a ratio of 1:3 to give owner-occupiers a freehold interest in non-residential property, and makes a total loss payment of 10 per cent. of the value of their interest. It is based on the current home loss payment regime, which most people agree should stay as it is. It also seems right on the basis of fairness and equity.
 Subsection (8) of new section 33B specifies that the basis for calculating the land amount is to be £100 per hectare for the first 100 hectares taken, and £50 per hectare for the next 300 hectares or part of a hectare, bringing the maximum payable to £25,000. As the occupier's loss payment is intended to compensate occupiers for the compulsory nature of the acquisition and the inconvenience of having to move at a time not of their choosing, the land amount is intended to provide a fair balance in the amount payable between freeholders and protected and other tenancies, which are of value, and farm business tenancies, which are not. It ignores differences in the values of different types of agricultural land, because the additional payment is intended to relate to the distress and inconvenience of being obliged to relocate farming operations rather than the intrinsic productive value of the land.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I must press the Minister about how she arrived at the figures. Under clause 74, the maximum payment might be £100,000. There does not
 seem to be much equity between that—it would relate to a property worth £1 million—and the maximum of only £25,000 for the disturbance to somebody obliged to sell a farm.

Barbara Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we cannot use the extra loss payment as a basis for capitalising on the value of the land. He referred to subsection (9) of new section 33B and city prices, but it deals with agricultural land. The sum of £25,000 to which he referred is additional to the £75,000 that is available for owner-occupiers in a special position. I hope that I have assisted the Committee.

David Wilshire: The hon. Lady may have assisted some members of the Committee, but she has not helped me very much. I am old-fashioned; I still think in acres. I have difficulty with hectares, so I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I talk in a language other than that used in the Bill. My arithmetic is probably not much good, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said that we were talking about an extra 1 per cent. of the value of the property that had been confiscated. That maximum figure does not strike me as generous or fair, but parsimonious in the extreme.
 An example comes to mind. It has nothing to do with Heathrow, except that it could be close to it. When talking about the price of agricultural land, those who come from the city are tempted to think that the rolling countryside is about £1,000 or less per acre and say how wonderful that is. I come from the edge of a great city, where the price of agricultural land is astronomic. A lot of the land outside cities can be small areas and used for market gardening and specialist production. It tends not to have agricultural holdings, huge farms and so on. 
 At one time, I had six acres of land, which had been a smallholding, used for agricultural purposes. It had attracted EU money—before I owned it, I hasten to add. If two acres from the six had been wanted for road widening, for example, the sheep that had been kept on the land could not have been moved a long way from the smallholding. If such an owner loses a couple of acres, he will be in serious difficulty. He could put a value on the two acres that had been compulsory purchased and confiscated, but he would still have to put the animals somewhere else because a certain number of them per acre would be unsustainable. 
 The land that had been confiscated might have been medium-grade agricultural land that was worth £2,000 an acre, given that it was the edge of the city, but to keep the sheep close to the owner's home so that he could deal with them at lambing time, he might have to buy land immediately next door to make up for the two lost acres. It could be that top-grade agricultural land was the only land available. The person had been compensated at £2,000 an acre, but the only other land that he could buy was at £3,000 per acre. The figure of 1 per cent. added to the value of the land that had been confiscated will not help him. He will end up with a 
 holding that is not viable, because no cheap land is available. 
 The maximum additional compensation of 1 per cent. is not fair. The Minister has not dealt with such matters. She said that she was referring only to agricultural land and that some of the values used were city values. Let us consider buildings. A clapped-out barn in the middle of Northumberland might be worth only a small amount, but I assure the Committee that any sort of structure on agricultural land in places such as Surrey has an enormous value. Some of the prices paid are ridiculous. If compulsory purchase powers had been used on parts of my six acres, my barn would have gone. I would have been given the value of the barn, but the chances of finding another—certainly the chances of being given planning permission to put something up—would be virtually zilch. I would have lost my barn and have been paid 1 per cent. more as an attempt to solve a problem that I could not solve. 
 A 1 per cent. uplift is not much use, and if the figure of 1 per cent. in relation to buildings is correct, it is not much use either. The Minister has failed to convince me that the provision is sensible. I do not know whether she can add anything further, but I am full of reservations. I think that the provision is mean to the point of being utterly unreasonable.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While my hon. Friend was talking, I was reading the Government's Green Paper ''Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: delivering a fundamental change''. I thought that I had read that the Government were going to clarify the fact that, under compulsory purchase, when only part of a property is acquired, the owner has the right to require the acquiring authority to purchase the entire property. Will my hon. Friend press the Minister to tell us the Government's intention on that?

David Wilshire: Of course I shall press the Minister. If she comes back and her defence to my objections is to say, ''If you're going to lose part of your property, you have a right to say that they take the whole lot'', that makes things worse. Just because two acres of six are taken away, to use my example, why should a person's only realistic option be to leave his home, go somewhere else and start over again? It is crazy if that is the Government's so-called way of solving the problem. A better way to solve this real problem would be to say that the value paid—whether uplift or the actual value of the land—will be the replacement cost.
 I realise that I am in danger of repeating myself from our previous sitting, but if two acres are taken away from somebody, which makes the six-acre unit unviable, and if the only alternative is for that person to buy better grade land so that he can continue to live and to earn a living, the obvious solution is not to use artificial figures such as 1 per cent. or to use ceilings. If two acres have been confiscated and a person can demonstrate that land is necessary to continue what he was doing, the Government should say, ''All right, we will replace that two acres and if it costs us more, so be 
 it. We will respect the rights of the individual rather than trampling all over his rights with jackboots.''

Barbara Roche: I shall operate one more time my self-imposed rule of responding only once to those points. First, in response to the hon. Member for Cotswold, the power already exists. It is in section 8 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that, although I was aware of it. There is confusion about the operation of the section. I understood that the Government were going to clarify the matter by bringing forward new proposals on compulsory purchase. Are there still any proposals to clarify the matter?

Barbara Roche: I have already said to the Committee—we also made it clear on Second Reading—that we shall have to consider other issues surrounding compulsory purchase. I will examine whether there is confusion, and that will be considered when we address other measures.
 There is confusion about the point raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The additional payment is 10 per cent. The 1 per cent. figure about which he talked is the estimated increase of the total scheme cost to the acquiring authority. I have already said that the figure of 1 per cent. was estimated in the regulatory impact assessment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister said that people would be entitled to claim the basic loss payment and the agricultural loss payment. However, will they also be able to claim the occupier's loss payment? If they claim the agricultural loss payment, are they precluded from claiming the occupier's loss payment?

Barbara Roche: It is either/or.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Loss payments: exclusions

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 439, in
clause 76, page 51, line 7 after 'any', insert 'reasonable'.
 On the face of it, the amendment is innocuous—

David Wilshire: And very reasonable.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend says that it is reasonable, but it is more than that; it is of great importance. Without the word ''reasonable'', paragraph (d) is pretty draconian. The Government are trying to speed up compulsory purchase, but citizens will feel aggrieved if they think that they have not been treated fairly. After all, if they do not comply with the notices, they will be excluded from receiving the loss payments.
 Under article 1 of the European convention on human rights, a person is entitled to free enjoyment of their property. If people feel aggrieved at not getting the loss payments because an act beyond their control has taken place, they may have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. Article 1 says: 
''Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.''
 We, of course, are making national law. However, if the national law is unreasonable, people might have recourse to the European Court under article 1.

David Wilshire: I am sorry to use my hon. Friend as my research assistant, but can he give us some examples of what the notices might contain, so that we can hear what sort of human rights might be abused under them?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is fairly clearly set out. The notice will make certain requirements, and those who fail to comply with them will not be entitled to the loss payments. There may be circumstances in which they could not meet the requirements of the notice because of the actions of a third party. For example, a financial institution might issue a legal charge in relation to an unencumbered freehold required by the notice, or the granting of planning permission might be needed for the demolition of a dangerous or unfit building required by the notice. There should be some discretion, because there will be cases in which it is impossible to meet the requirements of the notice in the time scale given.
 New section 33D(1)(d) simply says: 
''he has failed to comply with any requirement of the notice.''
 If any requirement were not met, regardless of whether that was the person's fault, paragraph (d) would give the acquiring authority the excuse to make them no longer entitled to loss payments. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope that she will think about the matter, and decide that perhaps the wording in subsection (1)(d) is too draconian.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing my homework for me. I should like to raise a subject on which we need clarification from the Minister. As far as those notices are concerned, the issue of what is a reasonable requirement is relevant. However, if that matter will be discussed in a clause stand part debate, I would be happy to be told to leave it until later. Subsection (4)(d) contains a good example of an unreasonable requirement. I can see how the relevant body might say, ''Well, if you do not repair this building, we might have to compulsorily purchase it so that we can do something about it.'' I went round that course in my local government days, and I understand the arguments well.
 The wording of new section 33D(4)(d) states: 
''notice under section 48 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (repairs notice prior to compulsory notice of acquisition''.
 Does that mean that it would be possible to serve a notice on someone that said, ''You must do this so that we can compulsorily acquire it''? In the context of new subsections (a), (b) and (c), I understand (d) to say, ''If you do not do this, we might have to acquire it in the greater public interest because that is, perhaps, the right way to go about it. This notice says that you must do this, and we could compulsorily purchase this listed building.'' That is extraordinary. It would seem 
 that if a local authority or the Government wanted a listed building that was in a clapped-out state, they would tell someone to renovate it and then take it from them, rather than acquire it and renovate it themselves. If that is what the new section means, it is outrageous and it raises all kinds of other questions. I hope that the Minister will put me out of my misery, so that I do not have to pursue the point.

Barbara Roche: I understand that hon. Members are concerned that no claimant should be deprived of the loss payment as a result of failing to comply with any unreasonable requirement contained in the notice that was served on them. However, each of the notices that is specified in new section 33D(4) has an appeal procedure attached to it and the time within which the reasonableness of the requirements may be disputed will be in accordance with those provisions. For example, section 191 of the Housing Act 1985 provides that a person who is aggrieved by a repair notice may appeal to the county court within 21 days after the notice's having been served. Any failure to appeal against the order within the statutory time lime set for that purpose would indicate acceptance of its terms. Furthermore, if a claimant considered that the appeal procedure had not been handled properly, or that the outcome had been unreasonable, he or she could have further recourse to the courts.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The problem is that if a claimant had not complied with any requirement of the notice, any finding of an appeal would have to decide in favour of the authority. If the provision said ''reasonable'', there would be grounds for an appeal if they had not totally complied with the notice.

Barbara Roche: No, the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the 1985 Act to see how the appeal process attaches to the notice.
 If a claimant had not appealed against a notice but considered its terms unreasonable, he could, on those grounds, object to being served with a compulsory purchase order. It would then be for the inspector and the Secretary of State to consider the justification for the compulsory purchase order in the light of the claimant's objections. The issue of the amount of compensation to be paid would arise only once a compulsory purchase order had been confirmed and the reasonableness of the claimant's failure to comply with the requirements of the notice had been taken into account. It would, therefore, be superfluous to apply a further test of reasonableness at that stage. 
 I reassure the hon. Member for Spelthorne that my reading of the clause is that compulsory purchase will be considered in such a case only if repairs will not be done. I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Just by chance, I happen to have before me section 191 of the 1985 Act—''Appeals against repairs notice''—which states:
''(1) A person aggrieved by a repair notice may within 21 days after the date of service of the notice, appeal to the county court.''
 Other sections state that there could be grounds for appeal in the case of a repair notice, without prejudice to the generalities in subsection (1); they refer to issues 
 surrounding the making of a closing order, and they state that where an appeal is brought under subsection (1), the court should, on hearing it, have regard to guidance given to the local housing authority. I do not have time to find the relevant passage, but that section does not say, ''If you have not complied with the notice, you will be able to appeal.'' Instead, it simply says that the person must have complied with the notice. Therefore, the subsection gives no discretion whatsoever; a judge or a court would have to find in favour of the authority.

Barbara Roche: New section 33(D)(1)(c) says that the notice has to be effective. If the notice has been successfully challenged on appeal, it will not be effective. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I assure him that his fears are unfounded.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not accept the Minister's contention. We will consider this matter in the cold light of day by referring to Hansard, and then we will decide whether we need to pursue it. However, we cannot pursue it any further now, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 191, in
clause 76, page 51, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(1A) This section also applies to a person if— 
 (a) he is a person to whom sections 33A, 33B or 33C applies, and 
 (b) his qualifying interest in land for the purposes of section 33A is acquired compulsorily under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 (Acquisition of land for housing purposes).'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 192, in 
clause 76, page 51, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(1A) This section also applies to a person if— 
 (a) he is a person to whom sections 33A, 33B or 33C applies, 
 (b) his qualifying interest in land for the purposes of section 33A is acquired compulsorily under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 (Acquisition of land for housing purposes), 
 (c) a notice falling within subsection (4A) has been served on him in relation to the land mentioned in that section, and 
 (d) the confirming authority has certified that it is satisfied that the acquiring authority sought to acquire the land compulsorily for the reason specified in the notice.'.
 Amendment No. 440, in 
clause 76, page 51, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
 Amendment No. 193, in 
clause 76, page 51, line 15, after 'notices', insert 
 'referred to in subsection (1)'.
 Amendment No. 194, in 
clause 76, page 51, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(4A) The notice referred to in subsection (1A) is a notice in the prescribed form and served in the prescribed manner stating that the acquiring authority intends to acquire the land for the reason that the land or any part of it should be brought into residential use.'.
 Amendment No. 441, in 
clause 76, page 51, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
 Amendment No. 195, in 
clause 76, page 51, line 37, at end insert— 
 '(8) In this section— 
 ''confirming authority'' has the same meaning as in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, 
 ''prescribed'' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This group of amendments addresses a complicated and contentious matter. The ill that we seek to put right was pointed out to us by Westminster city council. It is concerned about the number of empty houses in its borough that fall into disrepair. Even when local authorities serve a repairs notice and go through the entire tortuous procedure that I have just read from section 191 and the following sections of the 1985 Act, they still cannot get such properties repaired because ownership may change hands, and the matter may go to a higher court for appeal. This is a long and difficult process.
 These amendments would deal with the problem of an empty property that falls into disrepair, the owner is served a repairs notice but does not comply with it, and the property causes a blight on the neighbours or the area in general. Westminster city council tells us that the Bill would continue to leave in considerable doubt whether local authorities could use compulsory purchase powers under such circumstances. 
 The Empty Homes Agency says that there are 753,000 empty houses in this country. According to the Government's figures, only 115,000 people are officially homeless. The difference between the number of empty homes and the number of homeless people highlights the fact that there is a big problem. 
 If Shelter's figure of 400,000 hidden homeless people is correct, we have the largest number of homeless people in this country that we have ever had. That is an indictment of the Government. Therefore, this is an important matter, and Westminster city council thinks that there should be powers to do something about the problems that arise from it. 
 With regard to the acquisition of houses, section 17(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1985 refers to authorities that 
''acquire houses or buildings which may be made suitable as houses, together with any land occupied with the houses or buildings''.
 There is some doubt as to whether they could use compulsory powers to acquire houses that were empty and had fallen into disrepair. 
 When I looked up the relevant section, I found that there has been a specific case on this matter. ''Halsbury's Statutes of England and Wales'' usefully tells us that the power under subsection (1)(b) is not limited to houses that are intended to be altered to provide more housing units. It cites the case of Moore v. Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1966 at the Queen's bench, which is printed at page 602 of the All England Law Report 367. The case relates to acquisition of houses left empty for long periods. 
 The case involved a builder who built four houses and kept them for letting to provide an income for his old age. In 1960, the local authority became aware that several of the houses had been vacant for a 
 considerable period, and it wished to acquire them owing to the great need for housing accommodation in the area. The authority sent two letters to the applicant to negotiate the purchase of the unoccupied houses, but they were not answered—one can imagine such a situation arising in any borough. The local authority warned the applicant on three occasions that it would consider making a compulsory purchase order, but took no action after being satisfied that the applicant had executed leases on all four houses for three-year periods, although there was considerable argument about whether the leases were for full value or not. 
 After a few months, the houses again became unoccupied and the local authority renewed its proposal for purchase. It was informed by the applicant that litigation was pending between him and the tenants, and that he could not negotiate new agreements while the existing agreements were in force. 
 The case eventually reached an inspector who ruled in favour of the builder. It then went to the Government Minister who ruled that the local authority could acquire the houses. The case went to the Queen's bench under Lord Justice Lawton for adjudication. The case was decided in favour of the local authority. Lord Justice Lawton said: 
''In choosing to acquire houses which had stood unoccupied for some time and which were likely to remain unoccupied the local authority were keeping in mind their statutory duties in respect of the provision of housing accommodation.
It is manifest from the inspector's report that the local authority did not overlook the legal rights which the applicant had under the leases with his tenants, but they were entitled to weigh those rights against, first, the local demand for housing accommodation, secondly, the fact that the houses were vacant and likely to remain so, and thirdly, the statutory provisions contained in section 98 of the Housing Act, 1957, about acquiring property in which there were leasehold interests.''
 That case appears to confirm that a local authority can acquire empty houses that have fallen into disrepair. However, Westminster city council tells us that about half a dozen times a year it has considerable problems getting owners to repair their properties. It would like the legal position to be clarified in the Bill—hence, amendment Nos. 191 to 195. 
 Amendment No. 191 would remove the right of owners to receive additional loss payments in respect of all compulsory purchase orders made for housing purposes under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985. Westminster city council accepts that the amendment would be inappropriate for cases in which compulsory purchase was brought about through no fault of the owner, and that the Government may therefore oppose it. However, the amendment serves as a useful starting point in the debate about the use of CPOs in such circumstances. 
 My hon. Friends might become alarmed at the possible power that the amendment would give. I assure them that it relates only to loss payments. It would not relate to the value because owners would still be entitled to receive full value for the property, although presumably that would have reduced because the house was in disrepair. Nevertheless, the amendments are worthy of consideration. 
 Amendment No. 192 would include categories of people to whom the repairs notice falling under subsection (4)(a) of proposed section 33D would apply. The amendment states that 
''the confirming authority has certified that it is satisfied that the acquiring authority sought to acquire the land compulsorily for the reason specified in the notice.''
 Clearly, the notice would have to specify when the powers would be used. 
 Amendment No. 195 refers to the insertion of a new category of exemptions under clause 76 in respect of long-term empty properties. The exemption would apply to a local authority that served a notice on all persons with an interest in the dwelling stating that, as far as may be reasonably ascertained, the dwelling had been unoccupied for the past 12 months. Such a notice would be subject to a right of appeal. There is a balance to be struck. People are fully entitled to leave their properties empty. That is only fair and reasonable in a property-owning democracy. The amendments and the wrong that they would put right would apply only when properties were left empty and when they became a nuisance, either to the neighbours or the neighbourhood in general. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's response to that proposal. 
 Amendments Nos. 440 and 441 would leave out subsections (2) and (5). They are intended to probe what the Minister has in mind. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wants to remove the two provisions under subsection 5: an order under section 264 of the Housing Act 1985 on the closure of a dwelling that is unfit for human habitation and an order under section 265 of the Act, which refers to the demolition of a dwelling that is unfit for human habitation. In those two circumstances, the dwelling must have gone a long way down the line of being unfit and in disrepair. However, no doubt my hon. Friend will explain what he had in mind.

Matthew Green: Eagle-eyed members of the Committee will notice that my name has been added in support of the amendments suggested by Westminster city council. That was not because I colluded with Conservative members, but because I tabled identical amendments slightly after theirs had been tabled, as a result of which my name was added. The proposals of Westminster city council are entirely reasonable. I would not usually say that about the council, but it seems to be right in this instance.
 The hon. Member for Cotswold failed to say that the whole point of the amendments is that they do not apply only to houses that are unfit for human habitation. They would cover empty properties that have not reached a real state of disrepair, but the owners have done nothing about them for a long time. At present, while the building is still in a reasonable state of repair, the owners can be safe in the knowledge that no further action can be taken. The amendments would bring in a compulsory purchase policy that would strengthen the empty property strategy and stop it being seen to be falling into disrepute. At present, the Bill will not deal effectively with the worst abuses.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: When the amendments were suggested, I had a philosophical debate with myself about whether someone was entitled to leave his property empty in a property-owning democracy. I think that people are entitled to leave their property empty for an indefinite period, but when it starts falling into disrepair, the local authority has an interest in ensuring that it is repaired. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my distinction?

Matthew Green: No. I support the amendments. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the amendments suggested by Westminster city council. Perhaps I may read to the Committee some of Westminster city council's reasons for thinking that the relevant passage of clause 76 is defective. It states:
''There is no exclusion in respect of long term empty properties where the local authority has spent many months or years attempting to encourage and persuade an owner to bring the property into residential use.''
 There is no mention of condition. The reasons continue: 
''The exclusions are restrictive. The notices prescribed in clause 76 are not the only measure of whether an empty or occupied property is in poor condition.
There is no power to apply for a warrant to allow a survey to be undertaken to enable a notice to be served under Section 189 or 190 or the Housing Act 1985. Lawful access cannot therefore be gained where an owner is unco-operative or untraceable.
Some long term empty properties or occupied properties may not have deteriorated to the point where they are unfit and thus necessitate service of the notices prescribed in clause 76.
Section 190 notices may only be served in respect of dwellings in substantial disrepair and which are tenanted or in a renewal area. There are few renewal areas in existence and the vast majority of long term empty properties lie outside these areas.''
 The whole point of the amendments prompted by Westminster city council is to restrict the loss payments to the use of compulsory purchase for properties that are not in a substantial state of disrepair. The hon. Member for Cotswold may have spoken for an amendment that he does not really support, but I am glad that he has—the amendments are worth supporting.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I honestly think that the hon. Member for Ludlow has not read the underlying statutes relating to the amendment. New subsection (1A)(c), which amendment No. 192 would insert into the Bill, clearly states that the section applies to a person if
''a notice falling within subsection (4A) has been served on him in relation to the land mentioned in that section''.
 The section in question relates to a repairs notice under sections 190 to 193 of the Housing Act 1985.

Matthew Green: I am going by the notes of the experts at Westminster city council, who make it clear that the reason for the amendments is that the
''exemption will be to the effect that a local authority would have a power to serve a notice on all persons with an interest in the dwelling stating that, so far as may be reasonably ascertained, the dwelling has been unoccupied for a period of 12 months. Such a notice will be subject to a right of appeal with the burden of proof on the appellant to disprove, on the balance of probabilities, the assertion of the notice.''
 That would allow them not to make payments to people who deliberately keep homes empty, whether or not they are in a state of disrepair. 
 Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the Committee a little longer; the Westminster city council document states: 
''The requirement to serve repair notices on empty properties (or pay loss payment) is unnecessary and wasteful of human resources.
It delays the acquisition process. A repair notice must provide a reasonable amount of time for compliance. In the case of major works to a dilapidated building this would be many months and often more than a year.
It is illogical. The requirement to enforce the carrying out of works to a dwelling where an owner has shown no motivation to bring that dwelling into residential use is perverse.
No notice can require an owner to bring an empty property into residential use which, of course, is the main purpose of any empty property strategy.
The prospect of receiving an additional loss payment will provide a positive encouragement to some owners to allow properties to stand empty and dilapidated.
Additional loss payments are not warranted and cannot be justified when compulsory purchase is brought about by an owner's negligence or inaction.''
 The amendments are sensible. In conjunction with additional work that the Government may need to do, they could be a strong component of the empty homes strategy.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The import of what the hon. Gentleman says is that if, for example, a rich film star visited his or her house only once every five years, the city council would want to use compulsory purchase powers to acquire that empty home, despite the fact that the person concerned might bring huge amounts of money into this country. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that?

Matthew Green: That is exactly what the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman's name is attached states. The paragraphs that I have been reading are in the briefing note from Westminster city council that accompanied the amendments. I leave members of the Committee to decide whether Westminster city council did not know what it was talking about when it suggested amendments to us.
 These are sensible amendments that, taken with other powers that the Government might introduce, could be effective as part of the empty homes strategy. We are not suggesting a rule that the council must take over an empty property after 12 months. There are clearly circumstances in which a property might reasonably be empty, and our amendments would ensure that there would be an appeal to deal with such cases. 
 The number of empty homes in this country is a scandal. Bringing those empty houses into residential use would solve the homelessness problem completely, as there are enough of them. It is a scandal that not enough is being done. The amendments would help to ensure that, if those homes were brought into residential use through compulsory purchase, the owners would not receive additional loss payments because they had left their house empty for many years. 
 I strongly support the amendments, but I am becoming worried that the Conservatives might withdraw them in the light of my remarks, which would be a shame. 
 I do not, however, support amendments Nos. 440 and 441, as they would mean that people would receive loss payments if their property had been bought under compulsory purchase because it was unfit for human habitation or was in a state of disrepair. I do not quite understand what the hon. Member for Spelthorne intended when he tabled them—

David Wilshire: Heathrow.

Matthew Green: I am sure that it has something to do with Heathrow.
 I do not support amendments Nos. 440 and 441, but strongly support the group of amendments led by amendment No. 191, even if they would achieve something of which the hon. Member for Cotswold is unaware.

David Wilshire: Well, well, well, Mr. Pike, I have heard it all now. I had foolishly assumed that all the left-wing socialists were on the Government Back Benches, but we have just heard from one on Opposition Benches.

Tony McNulty: And Ted Heath.

David Wilshire: We will discuss him later.
 I thought that I had heard it all in the 15 years that I have been a Member, but now I have heard a Liberal Democrat arguing for the confiscation of people's homes irrespective of the use to which they are being put and the condition they are in. That is extraordinary. If that is what the amendments would do, he shames me by pointing out that I put my name to them.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us which political party runs Westminster city council?

Peter Pike: Order. This is an interesting debate. Unfortunately, my constituency has more empty houses than any other in the country. More than 10 per cent. of the housing stock is lying empty, but for very different reasons.

David Wilshire: As I was saying, in my 15 years in the House, there were occasions when I voted as I was told to and signed things that I was told to sign. However, I cannot recall an occasion when I spoke in favour of something that I did not believe in. I am therefore in a dilemma. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold winds up his, or rather Westminster city council's, argument—I should have read the document that it sent me, but I thought that I was here to do my own thinking rather than listening to Westminster city council, although I have a teach-in from Wandsworth council behind me, for which I am grateful—I should say that there is an alternative way of dealing with this, which members of the Committee may hear about in a moment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall try to clarify the matter for my hon. Friend. Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Ludlow misquotes what I said and the intention behind amendment No. 192. I clearly said that paragraph (c) concerns
''a notice falling within subsection (4A)'',
 which comes under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which states: 
''If it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of a part of their area, or of an adjoining area, is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area, they may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice under this section.''
 Clearly, the amendments are intended to apply when a property is in disrepair and is causing a nuisance to the neighbours or the amenity of the area.

David Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for quoting that section. I had not read that, but it certainly throws some light on the subject.
 Many things happen, some of which surprise me, and some do not. That particular contribution from the hon. Member for Ludlow surprised me a great deal. It means that there is only one party left in the Committee that believes in democracy: my own party. It is becoming clear as the debate winds on that we are the free-thinking party. We encourage individual members to have their own views and discuss the best way forward, even in public. 
 It is common cause between my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and me that we do something about homelessness. There are far more empty houses than there are homeless people. That offers one solution, and I do not dissent from that principle. We could find ways through the Bill of helping and encouraging people who own empty houses to make them available to help the homeless—if they want to. I have no difficulty with that, or anyone who wants to come forward and suggest a way of doing that. I gather that Wandsworth council has done exactly that in order to solve that problem. 
 The amendments would make compulsory purchase easier. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, they would make it possible for the local council, if it spies a nice little group of empty houses that it likes, to confiscate them. That seems crazy and totally unacceptable. The amendments would widen categories and create new exceptions. I would not find it easy to vote for them if my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold invited me to. He has got his revenge in first by neatly distancing himself from amendments Nos. 440 and 441. He was responsible for tabling the other amendments, and I was responsible for those two. That is a demonstration of our democracy. We discuss among ourselves what we think is a good idea. 
 I can put the Committee out of its misery concerning amendments Nos. 440 and 441. I had a good reason for drafting them. I could have done it the other way round, but it struck me that the clause was bad enough. It creates powers that will not allow applicants money unless they do certain things, and extends the reasons why property can be confiscated. Subsection (2) begins: 
''This section also applies to a person if—''.
 The clause will be made even worse if, after allowing the confiscation of property and the removal of payment for certain reasons, it specifies another 
 group from whom we can confiscate property and on whom we can impose financial penalties. It struck me that the clause was bad enough without subsection (2) and subsection (5). Given that it is such an awful clause, it might be slightly better if it did not have two targets in it. If we were to pass amendments Nos. 440 and 441, the clause would be marginally less awful. That was the thinking behind the amendments. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, just as he helped me enormously with the other amendments.

Barbara Roche: This has been an extremely—

Paul Beresford: Excruciating.

Barbara Roche: I was going to say ''entertaining''. Who said that compulsory purchase was not a fascinating subject?
 The amendments concern serious issues related to empty homes. I understand perfectly why Westminster city council raised these issues, and why Opposition Members have done so as well. The council clearly has in its sights people who have wilfully or neglectfully left their properties vacant. The council's policy, like that of other local authorities who face the problem, is to acquire such properties in order to bring them into use and so ease the housing shortage in popular areas. The Government agree with the principles underlying that approach, so it is interesting to see the confusion that that has caused among Opposition Members. 
 Denying the basic loss payment to all those who have their property purchased by compulsory purchase order made under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985, as suggested in amendment No. 191, would catch many more people than those at whom it is aimed. It is a blunderbuss approach.

Matthew Green: The hon. Member for Cotswold read out the part of the note from Westminster city council that said that it realised that that amendment was not perfect. It is a probing amendment, to discover how the Government intend to deal with the issue.

Barbara Roche: I understand that, and I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment.
 Section 17 of the Housing Act is not restricted to the purchase of single properties. Local authorities may also use it as the acquisition power for larger housing redevelopment schemes that would include purchasing tenanted as well as vacant houses. The vacant houses might be temporarily vacant, or the owner might be unable to attract tenants though no fault of his own. Landlords who leave their properties vacant are not necessarily culpable. 
 Westminster city council also seems to have overlooked the fact that land other than that currently used for housing could feature in a section 17 CPO; commercial premises or open land could be included. The amendment would not do what the council seeks; it is clearly unacceptable. 
 Amendment No. 192 introduces the procedure, and amendment No. 194 describes the notice. Amendment No. 193 makes consequential changes, and 
 amendment No. 195 provides for interpretation. I assume that the intention behind the amendments was to provide, in a fairer way than the scheme outlined in amendment No. 191, a way of determining whether a person whose land was being compulsorily acquired for housing purposes should be entitled to receive a loss payment. However, the amendments are flawed. 
 We support the principle of bringing empty properties into use to help solve housing shortages in popular areas. However, the Government also have a duty to ensure that any attempt to differentiate between those who are entitled to full compensation for the compulsory acquisition of their property and those who are not is fair and will not have unforeseen or undesirable consequences. 
 Clauses 74 to 77 provide that all those with an interest in land that is being compulsorily acquired should receive an extra loss payment in acknowledgement of the fact that it is in the public interest to deprive them of the ownership of that property at a time not of their choosing. The aim is also to encourage them to make an early settlement, which can also help in the process; and there is a fair measure of agreement about that among members of the Committee. 
 In finalising our proposals for loss payments, we agreed with the representations made by Westminster city council and others that it would be inappropriate for that additional compensation to be paid to those whose failure to keep the premises in good conditions had contributed to the need for the acquisition. Clause 76 therefore provides for owners to be denied additional compensation if property is being acquired compulsorily as a result of their failure to comply with a specified order or notice requiring them to take action to bring their property up to a particular standard. That is why we have used failure to comply with specified notices and orders as the basis for denying owners the loss payment if their property as to be compulsorily acquired.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister says that clause 76 will deny owners the additional loss payment if the need for the compulsory purchase is caused by their neglect of the property. Would she be so helpful as to point to the part of the clause that does that?

Barbara Roche: May I go on towards that? We have listed the notices in the clause. On the amendments tabled by the Opposition, the problem with serving a notice on the grounds that a property should be brought into residential use is that, however frustrating it may be to those of us who are anxious to provide decent homes for everyone, the law does not forbid people to own property that they choose to keep vacant. There are several perfectly legitimate reasons why they may choose to do that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow would agree. I shall give a few examples. Owners may plan to use the property themselves some time in future, the property may be entailed in some way, or there may be other problems such as probate or attempting to obtain planning permission for a change of use.

Matthew Green: I accept that there are plenty of reasons why someone might keep a property that is in
 a perfectly good state of repair empty for longer than 12 months, and why it would be inappropriate to use it. However, the amendments would not give the council a draconian right that it had to enforce; they would give the council a power that it could enforce if it was clear that there were abuses. The amendments are intended to deal with the problem of properties that have been left empty but have not reached the point of disrepair at which the council can apply one of the notices mentioned in clause 33D(4), to which the hon. Member for Cotswold referred. Some properties are not yet that bad, and could take five or 10 years to reach the proper state of disrepair. In the meantime, they are deliberately left empty. It is in such cases that the councils could use the power.

Barbara Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and it brings me back to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold. We argue that neglect is implied in the wording of new section 33D(1) and (2). We have also set out the notice orders in full in section 33D(4) and (5). We all know about owners who allow their property to fall into a state of disrepair. We have clearly set out in the Bill the circumstances in which loss payments will be denied. The amendments take a blunderbuss approach to that serious issue.
 Amendments Nos. 440 and 441 are interesting because Opposition members take a totally different point of view in them to that which they took in amendments. Amendments Nos. 440 and 441 are pulling in the opposite direction. They would entitle those who have been served with orders as a result of their property being unfit for human habitation to claim the loss payment. That seems illogical and runs counter to earlier arguments that the owners of empty properties who are served with a notice should not receive loss payments, even if their properties are in good condition.

David Wilshire: In my defence, I would say that the grouping of amendments is not a matter for me. We could perhaps have had two arguments in two different debates, but that does not matter now. It has been said that we are the democratic party, and I now tell the Minister that we are the party that believes in choice—we have given her a choice, and she can pick whichever option she prefers.

Barbara Roche: Given such a magnificent example of inconsistency from the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman has sought to explain his way out of it in a marvellous and ingenious way. I congratulate him, but he will forgive me if I do not find it convincing.
 It is not clear why Opposition Members want people whose property is compulsorily purchased following a closing or demolition order to be entitled to benefit from the new scheme. We have had an extensive discussion, and I understand the serious issues that lie behind it. The Government will continue to work on those issues, but we feel that we have got the balance right in the clause. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had an interesting debate, particularly on the Opposition Benches. We have found that the Liberals do not do their homework or understand the amendments to which
 they attach their names, but a more fundamental message has emerged. Not only will the Liberals tax more if they get anywhere near power, but people had better watch out if they keep their house empty because they will seize it. The Liberals need to consider carefully what they are saying. Having criticised the hon. Member for Ludlow, I will give way to him.

Matthew Green: Virtually everything that I said was from a briefing note from Westminster city council, so the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in criticising a Conservative-led council, its amendments and its principle of trying to get empty homes that are left for a long time back into use before they fall into a state of considerable disrepair. In this instance, I agree with Westminster city council rather than the hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in bringing confusion into a situation that needs to be debated. We are talking about the time when an empty home is falling into disrepair, and the amendments are not intended to deal with the wider situation. A serious problem needs to be addressed, and I do not think that the Minister has done that. By his continual persistence on widening the debate into empty homes in general, the hon. Member for Ludlow has blunted the point. I do not think that the problem has been addressed in the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman has done Westminster city council no favours, because the Committee has not been able to deal with the problem that it wanted debated.
 Nevertheless, we have given the amendments a fair run. The point has been well made about the real problem, so I do not think that there is any point in pressing the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Pike: I will allow a stand part debate, but it must be brief because every amendment to the clause that was tabled was called. I expect the debate to be fairly tight.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: I will respect your advice, Mr. Pike, and I want only to raise a point about subsection (7) that was not touched on by any of the amendments. I hope that talking about it for a brief moment will be relevant to the clause stand part debate.
 Subsection (7) says: 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsections (4) and (5).''
 What concerns me is not the content of those subsections—that has been debated—but the fact that, yet again, the Secretary of State is being given powers to change primary legislation by diktat. This does not involve merely adjusting figures in line with inflation; it is a substantial matter. The notices and orders are profoundly important. They raise matters of high principle, of politics and of practicality. They are not trivial little things, but notices and orders that 
 the Government wish to bring within the scope of the Bill. They are at the heart of the clause and fundamental to it. 
 However, having discussed and debated them, we come to a subsection that says that despite all that is in the clause, and regardless of what the Government have said about the intentions of the measure, they will change them if they feel like it—they will take these orders out and put others in, although we do not know what they might be—and will do so by regulation. If my gambling instincts are any good, which they usually are not, we shall be told that we might just, by negative resolution, have the possibility of being involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee why such jackboot, draconian powers are necessary, when we have had a thorough debate about what the Government think should be in the Bill. Why is it necessary to say that they will change their mind if they feel like it?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Subsection (7) is one of the 23 order-making powers in the Bill, and we have not had sight of the draft regulations proposed. Will the Minister tell us what might be in those regulations?

Matthew Green: The clause covers much of what the hon. Member for Cotswold believed his amendment would do. Subsections (4) and (5) list all the reasons for exemption, such as a property being unfit for human habitation, proper maintenance of land, requirement to repair dwelling in state of disrepair, repairs notice prior to compulsory notice of acquisition of listed building, and demolition of building unfit for human habitation. All the hon. Gentleman's reasons are already covered in the clause and are widely supported as reasons for not giving a loss payment on top of the normal compensation for the compulsory purchase of a dwelling. The remaining set of circumstances not covered by the Bill includes those properties that have not fallen into a state of disrepair and so not covered by these notices or orders, but have been empty for a considerable time and the owner is clearly not intending to bring them into use.

Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is basing his thoughts on the interpretation of Westminster city council. If he is correct, I shall be very surprised. In Westminster, there is a substantial property called 140 Park lane. It is on the corner of Park lane and Oxford street. Over the past 10 to 12 years, it has progressively been emptied and has not been repaired. It has residential units on the top floors and offices below. The intention was that the building should be gutted by new owners and turned into a new hotel. Under the hon. Gentleman's approach, that would have to be stopped.

Matthew Green: Under Westminster city council's approach, I do not know whether it would be stopped, as the clause includes a power that it can choose to use. I do not want to discuss the amendments at length—

Peter Pike: The Chair does not want you to either.

Matthew Green: My point is that there is no provision in clause 76 to cover such properties. The Government and the Minister will have to address that at some point. There is a get-out clause for many
 owners of empty properties, although I do not mean those for which there is a legitimate reason for being empty, and there are many such reasons. However, there are abuses of the system. People leave properties that are not in a considerable state of disrepair or do not fall under any of the notices or orders listed in subsections (4) and (5), but would need to be under compulsory purchase. It would be entirely wrong for those people to receive a loss payment, because that would create an incentive for such owners to leave their properties empty. People would know that such a property could be compulsorily purchased and that they would get the loss payment on top of their compensation, which would be completely undeserved.

Barbara Roche: Subsection (7) provides a power for the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations to amend the list of notices and orders specified in the Bill, in cases in which that is needed. There might be legislation in future that will need to be included in the list of orders or notices. For those who like less legislation, existing orders or notices may be repealed and replaced with others. Subsection (7) is perfectly reasonable and understandable, and should not worry the Committee.
 I completely understand the points that the hon. Member for Ludlow makes. We have listened to Westminster city council, which is why we have tried to frame the clause as we have. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about the loss payments, but that is only one element. The agency concerned will encourage people to bring properties into use, and there are Government programmes to deal with homelessness. We hope that the clause in part addresses the concerns that have been brought to our attention. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Loss payments: supplementary

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 442, in
clause 77, page 53, line 38, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Any repayment or additional payment arising from the provisions of subsection (5) above must be made within 21 days of the repayment or additional payment becoming confirmed.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
 Amendment No. 443, in 
clause 77, page 53, line 43, at end insert— 
 '(7A) Interest must be paid at the end of every month.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is the first time in the Committee that I have been pleased to move off a clause, and it is certainly the last time I shall table amendments, even for friends on a friendly council, about which I have reservations. I shall be having words with them. Had I realised that the amendments would provoke such a debate, I would not have tabled them.
 The claimant will have gone through the whole of the compulsory purchase procedure, as detailed in new section 33A(4)(d) and (e). Compensation will have been agreed. The whole process will have been gone through and may have gone to the Lands Tribunal. Anybody who has been involved with such a case knows that that can take a considerable time. The amendment deals with new section 33I. Under subsection (2)(b), another three months would be added to the considerable time, and that happens when there is a shortfall in the advance payment. The matter may have gone through the long procedure of notices, counter-notices and objections, the Secretary of State may have confirmed the compulsory purchase order and the case may have gone to the Lands Tribunal. Under the amendment, once the shortfall in the advance payment has been established it should be paid within 21 days. That is entirely reasonable. Under amendment No. 443, interest should be paid at the end of the month. These are two straightforward amendments, so I hope that the Minister will accept them.

David Wilshire: I rise for two reasons. First, I have some important issues to raise and, secondly, I want to show that on this side of the Committee we sometimes sing from the same hymn sheet. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend, who entirely agrees with me, so we are back on track. The amendments are straightforward and I live in hope that the Minister will accept them. It is the last occasion on which the Government can put me out of my misery and frustration and give me something before the Bill finishes its Committee stage.
 It is tempting, in debating compensation and compulsory purchase, to see major landowners and big projects at the heart of the whole process. However, as the Minister knows, it is possible for small amounts of land and individuals of no great wealth to be involved in road improvements, for example. For such people, the process can be worrying and financially stressful, especially when it goes on for a long time. Advance payments are right when it is clear that real value is at stake. I hope that the Minister will confirm that one of the criteria for deciding whether to make advance payments is that the person whose land is being confiscated is unlikely to be able to sustain the losses. It is all about the individual with a capital ''I'', someone whose land is being confiscated by a big bureaucracy, which can be threatening. 
 Additional payment should be made at the end of the process. It may be relatively small—perhaps a few hundred pounds—but that is not the point. The smaller the amount left over, the more likely it is to be important to an individual, as opposed to a big consortium or big company, for which even a few tens of thousands of pounds may not be necessary for a few days. We know what bureaucracy is like, and many of us have been deeply frustrated trying to extract from officialdom moneys to which we are entitled. 
 The amendment is eminently reasonable when there is no dispute that, after long discussions, perhaps going into appeal, additional amounts are owed. I see no reason why any sensible person would oppose the 
 notion that, having reached the point where it is finally established that some money is owed, it should be paid within 21 days. Interest while one waits is not the point. The provisions will affect many people who need the extra money, and it is important for them to know that they will receive it within 21 days. I shall be amazed if the Government argue against that. 
 Amendment No. 443 deals with interest payments. Again, it is understandable why most people think in terms of businesses, farmers and property owners being owed money on which interest is payable. It may be accepted that we will not get round to paying it for 12 or six months, and it really will not matter because it is a relatively small amount of interest on a modest sum. However, it is again possible that many people caught in this process are of more modest means and need an income of some sort, particularly if the compulsory purchase powers are depriving them of a source of income. That can easily happen if land or property from which an income is derived is taken away. If money is owed, it is not unreasonable to say that that interest will be paid monthly. No one is disputing that that money is owed; it is not an attempt to get money to which someone is not entitled out of the Government or a local authority. In my dealings with various organisations, I have come across many examples of people using any excuse not to pay today. It would therefore be helpful to make it clear that when interest is payable, we mean that it is payable monthly, rather than annually or when it suits someone's purpose. 
 I believe that both amendments are reasonable. They do not undermine anything that the Government seek to do, but give reassurance to the individual who is caught up in the process. I look forward to the Minister saying that she believes the amendments to be sensible, and that she agrees with them.

Matthew Green: The amendments are reasonable and make a great deal of sense. I support them.

Barbara Roche: I understand the sentiments behind the amendments. I championed such matters in Opposition and, as a Minister, brought in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. I therefore understand what such amounts can mean to small businesses. However, I shall disappoint the hon. Member for Spelthorne by seeking to convince him that the amendments are not necessary.
 New section 33I(5), which amendment No. 442 would modify, provides for any overpayments or underpayments of advances to be rectified 
''when the value of the interest is agreed or determined.''
 The implication is that such payments should be made without delay, not merely within 21 days. Subsection (5) follows section 32(2C) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which makes similar provisions for shortfalls or excesses in advances for home loss payments. 
 Amendment No. 443 would insert a new subsection (7)(a) into new section 33I, and would require payments of interest to be made at the end of every 
 month. That is unnecessary, because subsection (8) enables the acquiring authority, on request, to make a payment of the interest on account. Opposition Members may believe that giving such discretion to the acquiring authority would enable that authority unreasonably to refuse to make such payments. However, as we have discussed many times, authorities are under a general obligation to act reasonably. There is no incentive for authorities to refuse reasonable requests for payment on account because that will accordingly reduce their eventual liability for interest payments. 
 The discretionary element of subsection (8) is included to protect authorities from unreasonable requests by claimants. For example, the authorities would be able to refuse a request to pay interest of £5, which would cost more than that amount in transaction and staff costs and would not benefit the claimant significantly. The proposed requirement to pay interest monthly could also result in many small payments being made, when it would be more sensible for both parties to let the interest accrue for a while. 
 On the basis of my explanation, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

David Wilshire: No, the Minister's explanation does not satisfy me at all. It makes me more concerned that the Government are unreasonable. I would perhaps accept what the Minister said if the clause did not summarise the contradictions about which we have argued week after week, when we proposed that ''reasonably'' should be inserted into the Bill, and the Government contended that that was unnecessary. I draw the Minister's attention to new section 33E(3), which states:
''The claim must give such particulars as the authority may reasonably require.''
 For weeks we have heard that there is no need to have the concept of reasonableness written into the Bill. Why, therefore, is it included in that clause? 
 My colleagues and I have been accused of being inconsistent and disunited about the matter but, all of a sudden, when this Minister rather than the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is dealing with the Bill, we find a clause that concedes the need for the concept of reasonableness to be written in. Perhaps the Minister can give us a perfectly good reason why that is different. She argued that it is unnecessary, but that is not so. If one is to rely absolutely on the wording, it means that the extra payment is due when it is agreed. Therefore, if she and I were to come to an agreement, the instant that we said ''done'', the money would have to be produced. That is the literal meaning of the proposal, and it cannot be what the Government intend. They are saying that if something is agreed at 3.35 pm the money should be paid 3.36 pm, but no one could expect that to happen. 
 There must be an understanding that there will be a delay between the instant of agreement that a sum is due and the handing over of the money. Unless the Government mean that whenever negotiations take place an official will be present with a pot of money out of which he can instantly hand cash over, there will 
 be a delay. Common sense dictates that, and it is therefore reasonable and sensible to limit that delay. 
 The Minister may live in a rarefied world where £5 here or there does not matter, but it matters in my constituency. I can understand that it is administratively convenient for bureaucrats not to bother with a fiver here or there but to wait until it mounts up. That is one way of looking at it; it is exactly the way I would expect bureaucrats to think, because it would save them time and effort, and perhaps a bit of money. However, if that £5 matters, and paying monthly will be an inconvenience to officialdom, they might like to pay the interest on account a few months in advance rather than make people wait for interest in arrears. It is a matter of attitude, of whether one wants to be helpful or to trample over people and say that the little people of this world do not matter. This is not about big business and big funds, but about ordinary people who deserve decent treatment. They should get the money they are entitled to within 21 days. They deserve their interest monthly because they may depend on it. The sum may be too small for officialdom to care about but I know many people who care deeply about having a regular income, however small. I am not persuaded by what the Minister said.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I are at one. I agree, too, with his interpretation of what the Minister said. The difference between the advance payment and the actual payment and any shortfall could take years to establish in view of the procedures that I have described, such as land tribunals and so on. I accept what the Minister said about payments being made as soon as possible—under Furniss v Dawson, her words will form part of the case law if and when there is a dispute—but for a lot of public bodies, that could mean at least a month because they have a record of sitting on other people's money—indeed, would say that it is good trading practice to do so. However, the 21-day provision would make absolutely clear what every local authority was expected to live up to.
 Subsection (8) states: 
''The authority may, at the request of the person entitled to the payment, make a payment on account of the interest mentioned in subsection (6).''
 It should state ''must'' rather than ''may''. There are many examples in company law of when companies have to send a dividend of 50p because they are required to do so. That amount would not necessarily be accepted as it would be unreasonable to demand the sum, but it is more than reasonable to expect an authority to pay £5 or more. If someone is owed £5 interest, it should be paid at the end of every month. The Government are being unreasonable in not accepting the amendments. However, a vote on the matter would not achieve anything. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 444, in
clause 77, page 54, line 17, leave out ''other'' and insert ''higher''.
 I am giving my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold a rest so that he can marshal his 
 arguments. Amendment No. 444 is the sort of amendment that Government Members will have come to expect from me. It is born of a suspicion of officialdom; it is born of a dislike of diktat and the jackboot. If the Government were reasonable, and I often doubt that they are, they would have no difficulty in accepting the amendment, which would help them hugely. We have the jackboot again in proposed new section 33K(2): 
''The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute for any amount or percentage figure specified in these sections such other amount or percentage figure (as the case may be) as he thinks fit.''
 We have debated the amounts, yet now we are told that, should the fancy take him, the Secretary of State will pay no attention to them. I sometimes wonder what the point of Parliament is: it is clear that the Labour party does not think much of it. I have a suspicious mind; I assume that if the provision does not rule out putting the figures down, it will occur to some socialist Secretary of State to put them down and thereby reduce the amount of loss payment due.

Matthew Green: I too have a suspicious mind. If the present or a future Secretary of State increased the amount of loss payment by 200 per cent., a new Government could not, if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were agreed to, reduce the amount without introducing new legislation in the House. If we accept the word ''higher'', the Secretary of State could only raise the amount. If one Secretary of State were to do something unreasonable, his successor could do nothing to reverse it.

David Wilshire: Gosh, this is a good amendment: a Liberal has understood what I am trying to achieve. I am trying to do exactly what he says; I am trying to make it impossible for this mean Government to pinch money off people by reducing the amount of loss payments. If someone were to raise the figure by 200 per cent., I would be against using the jackboot to reduce it by diktat. If a new Government believed that their predecessor had done something monstrously unreasonable and had put that in their manifesto, the hon. Member for Ludlow would have given them a remedy that they could use—the power to legislate. That is what Parliament is for; if one does not like something that one's predecessors have done, one legislates. When we turn this lot out we will have a great deal of legislation to undo all the harm that they have done. We will do that through primary legislation, not by the jackboot. That is all that I suggest.
 If this Government have no intention whatsoever of screwing the public even more through this clause, they should have no difficulty in accepting that the amendment is merely intended to help them to be kind, helpful and generous. That would be a first for this Government; nevertheless, they may choose to do so. Let them accept the word ''higher'', and we will all know that they are reasonable people. If they do, I will be delighted to apologise for misinterpreting them and for my suspicious mind. I suspect, however, that my apology will be a long time coming.

Barbara Roche: They say, Mr. Pike, that one should never be amazed in politics, but at the moment I am. It was not Governments supported by the hon. Member for Spelthorne that introduced the new loss payments scheme: we introduced it. It is a generous scheme, as the hon. Member for Cotswold acknowledged. Far from penny-pinching, we are giving those whose land has been compulsorily acquired an additional payment. The hon. Gentleman, in a tremendous streak of honesty brought on by an intervention from the hon. Member for Ludlow, actually said that he is against the new regulation-making powers. However, in amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold, to which I am certain the hon. Member for Spelthorne attached his signature, he wanted the Government to introduce such regulation-making powers. Now, however, he describes these same powers as a ''jackboot''. I fail to understand what is going on in the collective mind of the Opposition Front-Bench team and certainly in the mind of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Ensuring that the figures and percentages can be amended only upwards would reduce the flexibility that the Secretary of State requires to adjust them. When they are reviewed, it is of course possible that the indices will suggest that they should be increased, but the upward-only ratchet would prevent the Secretary of State from amending the split between the basic loss payment and the occupier's loss payment.
 The hon. Member for Cotswold asked how all that could be changed, and we pointed to the regulation-making power. I really think that the amendment is nonsense, and I invite the Opposition to withdraw it. If they do not, I will urge the Committee to oppose it.

David Wilshire: I rather predicted that I would not have to apologise for saying that the Government were mean-spirited, and, sure enough, I do not. The Minister did not say that it was not in the back of her mind, or of someone else's mind, to reduce the figures, so I can only conclude that the Government are probably thinking of reducing them. The Minister has said that it is reasonable to have 10 per cent. here, 1 per cent. there and 2.5 per cent. somewhere else, and we have argued about that all afternoon. The Government's case for resisting the amendment is that their approach is perfectly adequate. We now find that there are powers to reduce the payment, so I am not sure whether any of our debate is worth relying on. The Minister is not prepared to rule out going back on every single thing that the Government have said in that regard.
 As for inconsistency, I make no apologies for signing up to amendments that probe the Government. The Minister was not present—I do not criticise her for that—when I, in one of my fits of honesty, admitted wanting to help the Government. I sometimes wonder whether I am sane on such occasions, but I have nevertheless admitted once or twice that it would be good to help the Government to be consistent. 
 Nine times out of 10, the Government love to introduce regulation-making powers—they love to put the jackboot in wherever they can. However, they have been inconsistent once or twice, and I have simply offered them another opportunity to trample over democracy. I do that purely in the spirit of co-operation and helpfulness. I am a reasonable person, so the Minister should not try to make anything of my kindness or to say that it is not what she expects. I make no apologies for seeking to help or for signing up to some of the amendments. 
 Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister has said, and it simply fuels my suspicion. We all know the reality—we have had the debate, but the Minister is not going to concede. She is clearly not interested in showing that the Government are in the business of helping people rather than trampling over them. I have little choice but to withdraw the amendment, because the Government will not accept it even if I press it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 445, in
clause 77, page 54, line 20, leave out 'annulment' and insert 'approval'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 446, in 
clause 77, page 54, line 20, leave out 'either House' and insert 'both Houses'.
 Amendment No. 460, in 
clause 87, page 58, line 21, leave out 'annulment' and insert 'approval'.
 Amendment No. 461, in 
clause 87, page 58, line 22, leave out 'either House' and insert 'both Houses'.
 Amendment No. 462, in 
clause 87, page 58, line 22, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 26.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Committee knows full well that I have an abhorrence of regulations or so-called secondary legislation. Last year, the House, through its various mechanisms, passed almost 4,000 bits of secondary legislation. Almost half the legislation that goes through both Houses of Parliament is secondary legislation, and much of it is undebated. That is an abuse of democracy, and if I had anything to do with it, I would considerably cut the number of order-making powers in primary legislation. The previous Conservative Government used such powers, but this Government have used them with huge regularity, and their volume has increased. Parliament's aim should be to reduce the amount of secondary legislation and to fetter the Government's use of it. If we have to have it, it would be better if it were subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. The negative resolution procedure simply states that a statutory instrument will be debated for an hour and a half. The Government will use their majority, and it can be voted in or out. It cannot be amended, and that is the end of the matter. Under the affirmative resolution procedure, there must be a proper three-hour debate on the Floor of the House.
 We want to amend the subsection further to ensure that it will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. We are seeking to raise the threshold of difficulty for changing regulations. Having passed regulations under the Bill, we want them to remain the same. We do not want them to be altered on a whim by a Government with a huge majority. That is not what this House—or democracy—is all about. When we pass legislation, we should be quite clear about what it is that we are passing. We should not leave it to the whim of the Secretary of State or his or her civil servants. 
 Amendments Nos. 445 and 460 are grouped together, as are amendments Nos. 446 and 461. Amendment No. 462 returns to the discussion we had about the provisions relating to Wales. The amendment is designed to probe the Government's thinking on why the English regions should be subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State, whereas in Wales, where there are properly devolved functions and powers, the National Assembly can make regulations with no recourse to the Secretary of State. In the interests of consistency, surely if the Government really trusted devolved institutions, they would allow the devolved regional bodies—whatever they might be—to make their own regulations without constant tinkering and interfering from the Secretary of State. 
 There seems to be an inconsistency in the Government's thinking. The amendment provides us with another opportunity to probe them on that inconsistency. Perhaps the more senior Minister now present will be able to tell us something that we have not already heard. We look forward to what she has to say with interest.

David Wilshire: It will come as no surprise that I consider the amendments some of the most important that we have discussed. We have had a long debate during many sittings. Sooner or later during those debates I—or one of my colleagues—have protested about the powers granted to the Secretary of State. It is not as if we are talking about footling, unimportant provisions. In a moment, we shall consider an issue raised by amendment No. 462, under which it might be appropriate to allow the Secretary of State to do something.
 We are considering giving the Secretary of State powers to tear up plans irrespective of a spatial strategy or what someone else has done. The Secretary of State by regulation or diktat can put the jackboot in and say, ''I don't care what you've done; I'm going to scrap it.'' This is important stuff. We are talking about the Secretary of State's power to determine what can be considered, or what people may decide. 
 The Secretary of State will have power to determine what goes into plans. The Secretary of State will have power to alter compensation, upwards and downwards. We are even giving the Secretary of State powers in some cases to determine what consultation means, which will restrict the input of the public into the whole process. Those are not footling little powers that a Secretary of State can sort out on a Friday afternoon. They are right at the heart of the Bill. 
 However, we are being told that all those draconian powers need to be subjected only to the negative resolution procedure. That confirms all my suspicions of what the Government think about the role of Parliament. They do not want parliamentary involvement. We have been told that we can debate this measure, but in the end the Secretary of State will change what we have decided in Committee. The Government are making every attempt to have those draconian powers exercised outside the purview of Parliament if they can get away with it. We know how it will happen. We will be bombarded with orders, dozens of them at a time, and Ministers will hope that they can be slipped through without anyone noticing them. When that happens, the jackboot has gone in and we can do nothing about it. 
 It is not in the least unreasonable to suggest that if the Secretary of State seeks to use those powers, given their extent—heaven knows, I have made it clear that he should not have them, but we have lost that argument—Parliament ought to have a role. The Government should be proud of themselves for wanting to embrace the democratic process. They should understand that people are concerned that the powers may be abused. In order to satisfy democracy and to allay people's concerns, they should bring draft regulations to Parliament voluntarily, and give Members the opportunity to decide. That is vital. 
 Those are our reasons for tabling amendments Nos. 445 and 446. We are not being pedantic, or trying to make changes for the sake of it. We want Parliament to have a real role in the process—a role for those Back Benchers who have experience of such matters, because we can sometimes help Governments of whatever political persuasion to keep in touch with reality. I suspect that regulations are far too often made for bureaucratic convenience or because the Secretary of State is in a hurry. If such matters are to be automatically scrutinised by Parliament, we stand a chance of controlling that dictatorial attitude, and of improving the regulations. As things stand, the chances of regulations being scrutinised are limited. That is the reason for amendments Nos. 445 and 446 to clause 77. Another pair of amendments would do the same in clause 87. 
 Amendment No. 462 deals with a curious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold picked up on the point about Wales. On reflection, the real target of the amendment is subsection (5)(a)there is some sense to subsections (5)(b) and (5)(c). The amendment would remove the words ''unless it contains'' and paragraphs (a) to (c). It is a probing amendment. I can understand why the Secretary of State and the House of Commons should not get involved in subordinate legislation made in the National Assembly for Wales. It will be a devolved matter and the Assembly must be left to get on with its own affairs, so subsection (5)(c) makes sense. Subsection (5)(b), too, makes sense as it deals with commencement under clause 86. Even I can bring myself to accept that orders saying when something should start need not be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. 
 Subsection (5)(a), however, is a provision that I cannot accept. Even if the Government are right to say that the procedure to be followed is an annulment—I have argued that they are wrong—and even if they ignore us about using the affirmative procedure, under subsection (5)(a) not even the negative procedure will apply. Some time ago, we debated clause 81(2)(a), which is about the Scilly Isles. The Scilly Isles may not matter to some people: they may not care because there are only a couple of thousand electors out there. However, the Government should tell us why they are stripping away the protection of parliamentary involvement from the people of the Scilly Isles. They contend that we can discuss all the other draconian powers of the Secretary of State under the negative procedure. However, if the Government act on the Scilly Isles, there will be no democratic involvement. What is it about the Scilly Isles? Is it a little fiefdom that the Government want to treat as a colony? Do they want to throw their weight about somewhere so that they can prove that they do not care about democracy or Parliament? 
 The Isles of Scilly may be small and insignificant—several Labour Members might not know where they are—but they are an integral part of the United Kingdom. Although the islands are small, a long way away and populated by only a few people, in my book the residents of the Scilly Isles are entitled to exactly the same democracy, consideration and protection from the Government's jackboot as the rest of us. The Minister must justify why the people of the Scilly Isles have been singled out to have both boots going in at a time, rather than the one that will go in to the rest of us.

Barbara Roche: I understand that the Committee debated regulation-making powers while considering earlier parts of the Bill—that is probably the understatement of the year. It might help hon. Members if I refer to existing regulation-making powers.
 Section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which is amended by new section 33K, to which the two amendments refer, provides a power for the Secretary of State to change the maximum, minimum and flat rate amounts under the existing home loss scheme by order. It reads: 
''The power to make orders . . . shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament''.
 The approach in new section 33K is broadly similar to the approach already in the relevant legislation. Opposition Members will not be surprised to hear that that was introduced when the Conservative party was in power. 
 Section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 governs the power to make regulations under that Act. Members of the Committee may not be surprised to hear that subsection (3) reads: 
''Any statutory instrument containing regulations made under this Act . . . shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
 Again, clause 87 follows a path set out in an Act made by the Conservative party. 
 The Bill follows well-established precedents for using the negative procedure for statutory instruments in respect of changing amounts and percentages under the home loss scheme. The idea that Parliament cannot scrutinise regulations made using the negative procedure is nonsense. 
 I understand that the my fellow Minister had an enjoyable morning last year debating regulations on the inquiry rules for major infrastructure projects with the hon. Member for Cotswold. I confirm that we will consult on the details of the matters to be included in regulations as we develop them. 
 A couple of other issues arose during the debate, including devolution and the National Assembly for Wales. Powers for secondary legislation have been devolved to the Assembly. Of course, there is a difference regarding English regional assemblies. It would be an interesting departure if the hon. Member for Cotswold was making a plea for such bodies to be given powers. 
 The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about the Isles of Scilly. The provision follows established practice, as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The council of the Isles of Scilly will have to be consulted before an order can be made. I hope that that reassures Opposition Members.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respect to the Minister, I must say no, it does not. She quoted section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but I do not know whether she quoted all of subsection (3). It says:
''Any statutory instrument containing regulations made under this Act (except regulations under section 88 and regulations which by virtue of this Act are of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
 I do not know why the 1990 Act makes an exception of section 88, which has to do only with planning permission in enterprise zones. Anyhow, that subsection shows that all sorts of legislation specify sometimes a negative, and sometimes an affirmative resolution. If there must be secondary legislation, it should be subject to affirmative resolution unless there is a cogent reason otherwise. Under the affirmative procedure, the Government face a higher threshold in getting changes to regulations through Parliament. Once legislation is in force, I would like there to be as few changes as possible. 
 The Minister made mischief about my comments on Wales under amendment No. 462. I was merely trying to probe the Government on the dichotomy in their thinking. The Government are prepared to give fully devolved functions to the National Assembly for Wales, but for some reason they do not trust England's eight regional assemblies, and they reserve huge powers for the Deputy Prime Minister. However, we have debated the amendments at length and there is no point in carrying on the debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 - Validity of strategies, plans and documents

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 447, in
clause 78, page 55, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(c) any decision relating to a policy has been unreasonably arrived at.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 448, in
clause 78, page 55, line 7, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
 No. 449, in 
clause 78, page 55, line 21, at end insert— 
 '(8A) The appropriate authority shall be liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved person if the High Court finds in favour of the aggrieved person.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We now move to part 8. Clause 78(2) says:
''A relevant document must not be questioned in any legal proceedings except in so far as is provided by the following provisions of this section.''
 In other words, the provision would fetter the courts' discretion as to how they interpret the Bill. That is an affront to democracy, and I would be grateful if the Minister—if she is listening—could tell us what legal precedent there is for the provision. It seems to be quite wrong that a Bill can fetter a court's discretion in that way. If there is legal precedent in primary legislation for such a provision, I should be interested to know whether the High Court or a higher court has overturned or varied it, or indeed whether that would be possible. 
 Subsection (3) lays out what may be considered by a court, and amendment No. 447 would add to it: 
''(c) any decision relating to a policy has been unreasonably arrived at.''
 If a decision has been ''unreasonably arrived at'' by an authority, surely the court should have the discretion to consider the matter and make a judgment. Amendment No. 448 would extend the period mentioned in subsection (4) from six weeks to 12 weeks. Six weeks is an unreasonable period; it is an incredibly short time in which to get the relevant advice about whether there is a case to take to the High Court and to enable the applicant to see whether finance could be raised, which would probably be necessary since such applications are very expensive. Will the Minister inform the Committee of precedents in other legislation for a six-week period? 
 Amendment No. 449 would insert a new subsection (8A), stating: 
''The appropriate authority shall be liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved person if the High Court finds in favour of the aggrieved person.''
 It seems right that if, once an applicant has gone through this expensive legal procedure, the High Court finds in their favour, it should be possible for it to award compensation. I see nothing in clause 78 to the effect that the court may award compensation, but the prospect of its doing so would be a significant deterrent to any public body that was inclined to act in an overbearing fashion.

Tony McNulty: In essence, much of clause 78 is covered by sections 284(1) and 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The precedent for the period of six weeks is set out in section 287(4). If I had time I should explain why the notion of compensation is completely and utterly daft, but we do not have much time and I do not want to end on such an acidic note. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments, which are the most ill-thought-out that we have seen.

Barbara Roche: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. This is a slightly unusual procedure, but it is nearly 5 o'clock and I think that the Committee did not want the occasion to pass without thanking you and Mr. Amess for the able way in which you have presided over our proceedings. Sadly, it is only this afternoon that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship, but the sitting has been conducted, like those chaired by Mr. Amess, in an extremely good-humoured way. We are grateful.
 I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the able way in which he spoke for the Government on most of the Bill. From what he tells me, many good and enjoyable debates have been conducted in a robust manner, but with good spirits. 
 I also thank the Clerk, the Hansard writers and my officials for their contribution—and, of course, all the Opposition Members.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I echo the words of the Minister of State who paid gracious tribute to you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Amess. I too pay tribute to the Hansard writers, the department of the Serjeant at Arms, the police, the Clerk and anyone else who has helped with the proceedings. On the whole the sittings have been good tempered, and although much of the Bill has not been debated, we have at least given some of it an airing. I thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Pike. You have been very tolerant.

Matthew Green: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I too would like to thank you and Mr. Amess for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I also want to thank the entire Committee for its forbearance during my disappearance during the birth of my daughter Abigail. I add my thanks to the Clerks, Hansard and the Serjeant at Arms. The experience of my first major Front-Bench lead in Committee has been fascinating. I have certainly discovered many things, such as that Ted Heath and Westminster city council are socialists. I am not sure whether there were more mentions of jackboot or of Heathrow. We shall have to go back through Hansard, which has been so ably produced, to work out which it was. I can probably say on behalf of the whole Committee that our proceedings have been very enjoyable, if slightly frustrating.

Peter Pike: Order. I should have ruled all those points of order out of order, as they were not really points of order for the Chair. However, they are accepted in the spirit in which they were meant.
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [9 January 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Question put, That clauses 78 to 83, schedules 3 and 4, clause 84, schedule 5, clause 85, schedule 6 and clauses 86 to 90 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at two minutes past Five o'clock.